Has anyone driven a 3.2 6MT yet?
Thread Starter
AudiWorld Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 7
Has anyone driven a 3.2 6MT yet?
I am trying to decide if the 3.2 is worth the extra $3500 but can't find one to test drive. I did test drive a 2.0T 6MT & 3.2 Tip. No contest...the 2.0T was far more fun and felt more powerful due to the 6MT. The 3.2 Tip actually felt boring to drive but was much quieter than the 2.0T. I imagine the 3.2 6MT will feel very different than the 3.2 Tip. Hopefully they arrive soon so I can make this difficult decision, order the car and get rid of my TL.
AudiWorld Junior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Are you kidding me?
I drove the 2.0T manual and 3.2 auto. The 2.0T's torque off-idle was very marginal. You had to rev the thing to get it moving.
Okay, it was fine once you were moving and on boost, but otherwise it was marginal. Don't get me wrong, it was fine. But the 3.2's torque will blow it away. No contest. Not to mention the refined smoothness, sound, and quietness.
I ordered the 3.2 six-speed today for an Avant. The manual gearbox will make it even more fun to drive in the same way you enjoyed the 2.0T.
By the way, I drive a GTI 337 with the 1.8T and love it, so I'm not against small displacement turbo motors. But only in much lighter cars.
In an A4 with quattro, the 2.0T is overburdened from a stand-still and in low-rpm motoring.
Okay, it was fine once you were moving and on boost, but otherwise it was marginal. Don't get me wrong, it was fine. But the 3.2's torque will blow it away. No contest. Not to mention the refined smoothness, sound, and quietness.
I ordered the 3.2 six-speed today for an Avant. The manual gearbox will make it even more fun to drive in the same way you enjoyed the 2.0T.
By the way, I drive a GTI 337 with the 1.8T and love it, so I'm not against small displacement turbo motors. But only in much lighter cars.
In an A4 with quattro, the 2.0T is overburdened from a stand-still and in low-rpm motoring.
New Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Re: interesting
Considering the max torque difference is marginal. And the curve is nearly flat through most of the rev range. Off idle, maybe.. But 1800 rpms and up, which is where you will be 99% of the time, the 2.0T is an torqey motor.
New Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 69
Likes: 1
No way
The 2.0T is a great car. I would not complain if I ownrd one. But it is no 3.2
Seems like too often folks are intent on narrowing away the difference in overall performance versus the 3.2. Maybe its just a way for them to justify their purchase. I don't see nearly as many 3.2 owners comparing their cars to the S4.
Unless you do some aftermarket upgrades, there is just not way the 2.0T can more than resemble the 3.2. I bought this car as a daily commuter for my wife in the nasty NY weather, and when we test drove she was the first to notice the difference between the 2.0 and 3.2
Seems like too often folks are intent on narrowing away the difference in overall performance versus the 3.2. Maybe its just a way for them to justify their purchase. I don't see nearly as many 3.2 owners comparing their cars to the S4.
Unless you do some aftermarket upgrades, there is just not way the 2.0T can more than resemble the 3.2. I bought this car as a daily commuter for my wife in the nasty NY weather, and when we test drove she was the first to notice the difference between the 2.0 and 3.2
AudiWorld Junior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
243 vs. 207 lb ft is more than a 'marginal' differeance...
I guess it depends how much stop and go driving you do -and- how much time you drive in higher gears at lower rpm.
If you do a measurable amount of either, the 3.2's torque superiority is very, very apparent....and appreciated.
The 2.0's peak torque at 1850 rpm sounds impressive, but below that, the small displacement motor combined with little or no boost is somewhat weak given the amount of weight it must propel from a standstill.
I think the 3.2 is worth the price delta for my driving tastes.
If you do a measurable amount of either, the 3.2's torque superiority is very, very apparent....and appreciated.
The 2.0's peak torque at 1850 rpm sounds impressive, but below that, the small displacement motor combined with little or no boost is somewhat weak given the amount of weight it must propel from a standstill.
I think the 3.2 is worth the price delta for my driving tastes.
New Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Re: 243 vs. 207 lb ft is more than a 'marginal' differeance...
Remember, it's not about peak torque as much as it is area under the curve.. Also note that 207 is probably underrated by 15-20 according to what stock 2.0Ts are pulling on the dyno.
Driving under 1850 RPMs is not something one does for more than a second or two. And with a MT, one need not ever pull away from a standstill at idle as with an AT.
And of course this is not even mentioning the fact that $600 buys a 2.0T more performance than the 3.2 offers.
Glad you are happy with your purchase, as I am with mine!
Driving under 1850 RPMs is not something one does for more than a second or two. And with a MT, one need not ever pull away from a standstill at idle as with an AT.
And of course this is not even mentioning the fact that $600 buys a 2.0T more performance than the 3.2 offers.
Glad you are happy with your purchase, as I am with mine!
Trending Topics
AudiWorld Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 624
Likes: 19
Funny that no one mentions MPG...
<center><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~jrdailey/Holiday2004/A4_Ridge.jpg"></center><p>
Given $3/gallon gas, the mileage of a 2.0T manual alone is enough to persuade me. But then I live in the Pacific Northwest where I do a lot of long-distance highway driving (Vancouver BC, Portland, OR), very little stop and go, and a decent amount of higher altitude driving going backpacking on weekends.
My current 1998 A4 2.8QTip gets okay mileage, but I'm definitely looking forward to the mileage improvement. The 3.2 gets about the same mileage as my 7-year-old 2.8. I guess for the V6 Audi chose to improve horsepower and torque while keeping efficiency flat.
-James in Seattle<ul><li><a href="http://home.comcast.net/~jrdailey/">Lots of Pacific NW photos</a></li></ul>
Given $3/gallon gas, the mileage of a 2.0T manual alone is enough to persuade me. But then I live in the Pacific Northwest where I do a lot of long-distance highway driving (Vancouver BC, Portland, OR), very little stop and go, and a decent amount of higher altitude driving going backpacking on weekends.
My current 1998 A4 2.8QTip gets okay mileage, but I'm definitely looking forward to the mileage improvement. The 3.2 gets about the same mileage as my 7-year-old 2.8. I guess for the V6 Audi chose to improve horsepower and torque while keeping efficiency flat.
-James in Seattle<ul><li><a href="http://home.comcast.net/~jrdailey/">Lots of Pacific NW photos</a></li></ul>
AudiWorld Stories
Bringing Audi to Life for Audi Fans
10 Strangest Audi Designs That Actually Made Production
Joe Kucinski
2027 Audi Q7 and SQ7: Audi Upgraded EVERYTHING!
Michael S. Palmer
Audi Unveils Absurdly Cool New Supercar: 10 Things You Need to Know!
Verdad Gallardo
The Highs & Lows of Every Audi C-Class Generation
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Most Expensive Audis Ever Sold on Bring-A-Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Audi Features & Options We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
Audi Recreates Crazy-Looking Speed Record Breaker From 1935
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilder Recreates the 1995 Audi TTS Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Every Audi V10 Car Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
New Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Re: 243 vs. 207 lb ft is more than a 'marginal' differeance...
I drove both the 2.0t and 3.2 in tiptronic form (I expressly did not want a 6 speed), and while the 3.2 is a smoother motor (stands to reason), I did not find the extra cost worth it for me. My car is primarily winter transportation to and from work and for picking/dropping off packages and the like
For those who like to play, its also no contest in my book...the 2.0 is the motor of choice.
Both are very nice motors for the application, and given the performance of the 2.0 even with my tip, the motor is not overtaxed at all. In fact, it moves this heavy car very very well.
For those who like to play, its also no contest in my book...the 2.0 is the motor of choice.
Both are very nice motors for the application, and given the performance of the 2.0 even with my tip, the motor is not overtaxed at all. In fact, it moves this heavy car very very well.